4 ms·

>It is beyond silly to claim that patent reform would harm small inventors when it is the status quo that harms small inventors. It might be, that the status q

>It is beyond silly to claim that patent reform would harm small inventors when it is the status quo that harms small inventors. It might be, that the status quo harms small inventors. But I wanted to give a different perspective on the one thing that is in focus with the last patent reforms. What you describe, has nothing to do with that. The problem is, that the intention of the reform was to prevent parties with no own production to sue other companies because of patent infringements. And such a move would of course block some patent trolls (not all) but also would massively harm small or single person inventors. "It is beyond silly to claim that" any reform will make things better. I have seen so many reforms in other areas, that just made things worse -- I would even say most of the "reforms" I have seen.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> The problem is, that the intention of the reform was to prevent parties with no own production to sue other companies because of patent infringements. And such a move would of course block some patent trolls (not all) but also would massively harm small or single person inventors. You're claiming that small inventors would be unable to enforce their patents against larger competitors, what I'm saying is that that is the status quo. Future passage of patent reform cannot cause that to happen because it has already happened and causality requires the cause to precede the effect. Patent reform could allow small inventors to better enforce their patents because they wouldn't have to worry as much about counterclaims using low quality patents that would currently cause them to be bankrupted with litigation costs. > I have seen so many reforms in other areas, that just made things worse -- I would even say most of the "reforms" I have seen. That isn't an argument. You're effectively saying that most change is bad therefore all change is bad. The premise is questionable and the conclusion doesn't follow from it in any event.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> The problem is, that the intention of the reform was to prevent parties with no own production to sue other companies because of patent infringements. And such a move would of course block some patent trolls (not all) but also would massively harm small or single person inventors. You're claiming that small inventors would be unable to enforce their patents against larger competitors, what I'm saying is that that is the status quo. Future passage of patent reform cannot cause that to happen because it has already happened and causality requires the cause to precede the effect. Patent reform could allow small inventors to better enforce their patents because they wouldn't have to worry as much about counterclaims using low quality patents that would currently cause them to be bankrupted with litigation costs. > I have seen so many reforms in other areas, that just made things worse -- I would even say most of the "reforms" I have seen. That isn't an argument. You're effectively saying that most change is bad therefore all change is bad. The premise is questionable and the conclusion doesn't follow from it in any event.